WARNING:
This file involves reference to matters governed by a court ordered publication ban pursuant to the Criminal Code
While access to the material is permitted, members of the public are reminded that publishing, broadcasting or transmitting in any way some or all of the material in this file is a contravention of the Criminal Code.
COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-10000487-00
DATE: 20180614
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
– and –
COURTNEY ROCKER
Respondent
Rebecca Law, for the Crown
Svibor Gamulin, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 18, 2018
BAWDEN J.
Introduction
[1] Julia M was only 16 years old when she left her home in Hamilton to join her friend Jessica in Niagara Falls and work in the sex trade. Jessica helped her by posting ads on Backpage, talking to clients on her behalf and taking care of all of her money. Julia and two other girls worked for Jessica in Niagara Falls for approximately two weeks.
[2] One of the girls knew of a man in Toronto named Rocco who was willing to put them up in a hotel. The four girls decided to go to Toronto where they would work and party. They took an Uber to the King Edward hotel in Toronto where they were told by text message to come directly to room 681. When they arrived, Mr. Rocker was waiting for them.
[3] Over the course of the next four days, Mr. Rocker took Julia and the other girls to clubs and parties. He provided Julia with alcohol, cocaine and MDMA (Molly). He tried to have sex with her on one occasion. He paid for her hotel rooms, bought her an expensive pair of shoes and took steps to protect her when she was accosted by men who wanted her to work for them. The party came to a sudden and unexpected end when the police entered Mr. Rocker’s hotel room to investigate his use of a fraudulent credit card and found three nearly naked teenaged girls asleep in bed. Inquiries were made and charges followed.
[4] The Crown alleges that Mr. Rocker was grooming Julia in order that he could become her pimp. Ms. Law argues that even at this early stage of the proceedings, Mr. Rocker was exercising control and direction over Julia’s movements in order to exploit her. The defence disputes this characterization and argues that it was all just a party, a middle aged man who chose to spend his time and resources in the entertainment of four teenaged sex trade workers.
[5] The truth, in my estimation, falls very much closer to the Crown's characterization than that of the defence. I certainly believe that Mr. Rocker had embarked on a project to enlist Julia and her friends to act as sex trade workers for his benefit. The issue is whether he did enough in the space of four days that I can be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of human trafficking as it is defined in section 279.011(1) of the Criminal Code have been proven.
Count #1 - Human Trafficking
[6] There are three essential elements which the Crown seeks to prove:
a. That Mr. Rocker exercised control or direction over Julia’s movements;
b. That Julia was under the age of 18; and
c. That Mr. Rocker's purpose in exercising control or direction over Julia was to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of Julia as it is defined in section 279.04 of the Code.
[7] The second point is not contentious. Julia told Mr. Rocker that she was only 16 when they first met and Mr. Rocker told her that if anyone asked, she should say that she was 19. Julia was not challenged on this point.
The Conduct Element of Section 279.011
Exercising Control
[8] The only unusual aspect of this case is that events came to such a quick conclusion. The history of human trafficking is replete with accounts of young women who were induced to engage in the sex trade by men who initially presented themselves as caring and generous protectors. The generosity does not ordinarily last long and soon the victim comes to recognize the exploitative nature of the relationship and tries to escape it. It is at that point that the most overt demonstrations of control and direction usually manifest themselves.
[9] In this case, it appears that the police interceded at the grooming stage of the relationship. Julia was still quite satisfied to receive the drugs and alcohol which Mr. Rocker was providing to her and there had been few if any overt indications from Mr. Rocker that she would have to perform sexual services to repay the mounting debt. Julia was willingly following Mr. Rocker with little need for him to exercise control or direction over her movements.
[10] In the course of Crown submissions, I asked Crown counsel to list the evidence that she relies upon to prove that Mr. Rocker exercised control over Julia. This inquiry admittedly did a disservice to the Crown’s case by suggesting that a complex dynamic as perceived through the eyes of a 16 year old can be reduced to a short list of events. In the context of this case, however, it was a necessary inquiry. Ms. Law could only cite the following two incidents:
a. An assault committed at a club; and
b. Comments to the effect that “loyalty is royalty”.
[11] The assault at the club is the only occasion when Mr. Rocker acted violently towards Julia.[^1] Julia testified that she went to a club one evening with Mr. Rocker and was approached by several men who were trying to convince her to work for them. One of the men showed Julia that he had a pocketknife. Rocco came and grabbed her by the arm and pulled her roughly out of club saying "let's go, let's go”. He subsequently apologized to her and told her that he wouldn't have done it if she would have just come with him. The incident scared Julia and left a significant bruise on her arm.
[12] This incident is certainly capable of being interpreted as an effort to exercise control over Julia and that is the impression that Julia herself conveyed in her statement to police. But in cross-examination at trial, Julia agreed that the situation was a potentially dangerous one and it was not out of the question that Mr. Rocker had been acting in her best interests in extricating her from the situation quickly. Perhaps more importantly, Julia acknowledged that she was very drunk that night, had done several lines of cocaine and had taken MDMA. Although she recalled that Mr. Rocker had caused the bruise to her arm, she had no recollection of how she had suffered two other significant bruises to her upper thighs. She supposed that she may have caused those injuries by falling while she was drunk or while she was pole dancing.
[13] The Crown and defence positions regarding this incident are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Rocker might well have had concerns about Julia’s safety while at the same time wanting to prevent her from entertaining offers from other pimps. If this was one of a number of occasions when Mr. Rocker had acted violently in response to Julia speaking to other men, it might be very easy to recognize it as evidence of exercising control. Viewed without such a backdrop and with due regard to the limited reliability of the recollections of a highly intoxicated 16 year old, it is difficult to make that finding.
[14] The Crown next relies on Mr. Rocker’s comments about loyalty as evidence of exercising control. The officers who interviewed Julia on February 23rd, 2016 asked her if Rocco had made any promises to her. After a moment's reflection she said "oh, being loyal... he says it's 'loyalty and royalty'”. The officers asked Julia if she knew what he meant by that and she said "like respect him and show him love cause apparently he shows us love and he wants love back. But he wants a different love. And that's not the love I want to give."
[15] Julia was questioned about this portion of her video statement at the preliminary inquiry. Even after watching her video statement and adopting its contents, she could not recall talking about royalty and loyalty with Rocco. She testified that she was loyal to him and did treat him with respect but she didn't tie that to any particular conversation. On further reflection, she recalled that he owned a vest that had "Royalty and Loyalty" written across it.
[16] Any evidence that Mr. Rocker was demanding “loyalty" from Julia is quite inconsistent with the defence theory that Mr. Rocker was simply partying for the weekend with a group of young girls. I am satisfied that Julia had some conversation with Mr. Rocker about loyalty but I cannot necessarily find that Mr. Rocker intended by that conversation to further an exploitative relationship. From his perspective, it may well have been idle conversation prompted by the writing on his vest.
[17] The assault at the club and the conversation about loyalty certainly provide some evidence that Mr. Rocker at least attempted to exercise control over Julia’s movements but even when considered in light of all of the evidence in the case, I cannot say that they satisfy me of this element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Exercising Direction over Julia’s Movements
[18] Mr. Rocker was arraigned on a count alleging only that he exercised control over the movements of Julia M. The Crown brought an application prior to the defence opening to amend count one on the indictment to add the exercise of direction and influence as bases for liability. The application succeeded to the extent that direction over the movements of Julia was added. The principle argument advanced by the Crown in support of that amendment was that the evidence concerning a movement from the King Edward Hotel to the Holiday Inn Hotel could not easily be described as exercising control but aptly demonstrated direction over Julia’s movements.
[19] The facts regarding this move are uncertain. In her statement to police, Julia recalled that Mystical and Rocco became involved in a disagreement in the washroom and Mystical wanted to go home. Mr. Rocker would not let her go. Mystical intended to call a cab but Julia warned her against it saying that she would get in trouble. They discussed calling someone to pick them up but ultimately decided instead to go with the rest of the group to a new hotel. A police officer named Julie spoke to Julia prior to her leaving the King Edward but did not take any action as a result of that conversation.
[20] Jessica testified that the disagreement was a verbal one between herself and the three other girls. Mystical and Julia went downstairs and one of the girls saw that the police were at the front desk. Recognizing that it didn’t look good to have a grown man in a room with four under aged girls, Mr. Rocker decided that they would all leave through the back door.
[21] The evidence does not reliably disclose the time at which the group left the King Edward. I did not hear from the officer who interviewed Julia and I have no idea what questions were put to her. I do not know if Mr. Rocker formally checked out of the King Edward or if the account for the room was settled.
[22] The Crown argues that I can draw from this evidence that Mr. Rocker deliberately moved the girls from one hotel to another in order to extend an ongoing exploitative relationship. If that is true, Julia was seemingly unaware of it. As she recalled it, she had not performed any sexual services for profit at the King Edward and she also wanted to escape police scrutiny. Julia had no interest in being taken back to her father in Hamilton by police.
[23] There was nothing in Julia's account of this movement to the Holiday Inn that conveyed a sense that Mr. Rocker was exercising direction over her movements in the sense that section 279.011 envisions. Julia seemingly decided to go to the new hotel of her own volition and there is nothing in her evidence to suggest that Mr. Rocker even encouraged her to come.
[24] The premise of the Crown’s argument is that Mr. Rocker had to move the girls to perpetuate an ongoing exploitative relationship. There is no evidence that Julia was providing any sexual services for the benefit of Mr. Rocker at the King Edward Hotel. There is no evidence that the officers who attended at the King Edward were aware of Mr. Rocker’s existence or had any suspicions that the girls were involved in prostitution. On the evidence before this Court, it is reasonable to infer that the police were satisfied by whatever inquiries they made and left. The hotel move could just as easily have occurred because the room at the King Edward Hotel was becoming too expensive or Mr. Rocker intended to skip out on the bill.
[25] In the absence of any other evidence that could buttress the Crown argument that this was an unlawful direction over the movements of Julia, I am left in a state of doubt.
The Purpose Element of the Offence – Section 279.04
[26] In the event that I have erred in my assessment of the elements of s. 279.011, I will also consider the evidence that relates to s. 279.04.
[27] In addition to proving that Mr. Rocker exercised control over the movements or the direction of Julia, the Crown must prove that he did so with the intention of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of Julia. To facilitate simply means to make it easier to exploit the victim.
[28] In the context of this case, the Crown must prove that Mr. Rocker caused Julia to provide or offer to provide sexual services by saying or doing things which could cause a reasonable person in Julia's position to believe that her safety would be threatened if she failed to provide or offer to provide those services. This determination is to be made based on all of the circumstances of the case including Julia’s personal circumstances. The Crown need not prove that Julie's safety actually was threatened but only that a reasonable person in all of the circumstances would have believed that it was threatened.
[29] It does not matter if Mr. Rocker failed to achieve his exploitative purpose as long as the Crown proves that he committed these acts with the necessary intent.
[30] The Crown argument regarding exploitation was again handicapped by a lack of evidence. Ms. Law suggested that three aspects of the evidence could support a finding that Mr. Rocker used force, the threat of force or some other form of coercion to exploit Julia:
a. The assault at the club when Julia was pulled away from competing pimps;
b. Mr. Rocker's statement to her that he had previously shot someone and had spent time in jail; and
c. The statement that if she did not make enough money, she would be out on the street.
[31] The assault in the bar was the only occasion when Mr. Rocker acted violently towards Julia. A single incident of violence could be sufficient to make out exploitation as it is defined in s. 279.04 but one would expect that such an act would have to be decisively focused on compelling the victim to perform the service in order to prove the issue beyond any doubt. For the reasons set out above, I cannot draw that conclusion from this assault.
[32] It is similarly difficult to draw any firm conclusion about Mr. Rocker's intentions when he told Julia that he had been to jail and that he had shot someone. Such statements certainly could have been said with the intention of facilitating an exploitative relationship. They could equally be statements of sheer bravado. Recounted as they were without context or any accompanying actions by Mr. Rocker, I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rocker had the prohibited intent when he uttered the words.
[33] In terms of possible forms of coercion, Ms. Law urged me to consider two aspects of the evidence:
a. The sense of indebtedness that Mr. Rocker instilled in Julia; and
b. The evidence that Mr. Rocker told Julia that "loyalty is royalty" and held out the promise of love and family.
[34] The evidence with regards to creating a sense of indebtedness in Julia was also equivocal. Julia herself did not have any clear sense of a financial arrangement between herself and Mr. Rocker. At one point in her statement, she said that she would give him half of whatever she earned. At another point, she said that she simply had to pay him back for what she owed for the hotel, the alcohol, the shoes and the drugs. Her uncertainty on this point continued throughout her testimony at trial and never was resolved.
[35] The Crown argues that it is this very uncertainty about the extent of the indebtedness which illustrates Mr. Rocker's coercion. By his early display of generosity, Mr. Rocker hoped to create a sense of perpetual indebtedness which would cause Julia to succumb to an exploitative relationship. There is little evidence to support this theory. Jessica told the police that Rocco wanted half of the money that she made until he was paid back and after that, she would keep all of her earnings herself.
[36] One of the key factual disputes of this trial was whether Julia actually did provide Mr. Rocker with the proceeds from her sexual services. In her video statement, Julia recalled an occasion when she saw a client at the hotel. The client paid her $120 which she then turned over to Mr. Rocker to pay back expenses that he had covered for her. Julia could not recall this event when she testified at trial despite having watched her video statement on several occasions. Jessica recalled the incident and testified that she saw Julia hand the proceeds from the service over to Mr. Rocker. Jessica stressed that Julia had handed the money to Mr. Rocker quite willingly.
[37] I find that this event did occur in essentially the manner in which Julia described it in her video statement. This finding assists the Crown by establishing that Julia was providing “a service” within the meaning of s. 279.04 but it does little to prove that Mr. Rocker caused her to provide that service.
[38] Julia had been providing sexual services for profit for two weeks in Niagara Falls before she came to Toronto. She testified that she came to Toronto with the intention of partying and doing some work. She was conscious of the fact that Mr. Rocker had paid for her hotel room and she wanted him to continue to do so. Mr. Rocker did not play any part in advertising her sexual services and there is little evidence that he urged her to provide further services in the few days that they were together.
[39] I am ultimately left with a doubt as to whether a reasonable person in all of Julia’s circumstances would have believed that her safety would be threatened if she did not provide or offer to provide sexual services. On the evidence before me, Julia performed two sexual services in the four days that she knew Mr. Rocker and she consumed the profits from one of those services herself. Mr. Rocker took no part in advertising her services and never communicated with any client on her behalf. There is little evidence that Mr. Rocker pressured her to work and no evidence that he threatened her with any harm if she did not. At its highest, the evidence is that he told her that if she didn't bring in enough money, she would be out on the street.
[40] Being out from the hotel would have been uncomfortable to Julia and it may have compelled her to call her father to come and get her. It was not a serious threat to her safety or to her psychological wellbeing and I am not satisfied to the necessary standard that a reasonable person in all of Julia’s circumstances would have perceived it as such. Accordingly, the exploitative purpose under section 279.04 has not been made out.
[41] I find Mr. Rocker not guilty of count #1.
Count #2 – Receipt of Financial or Material Benefits
[42] The Crown does not press for a conviction on the second count on the indictment.
[43] The evidence indicates that Mr. Rocker bought expensive shoes for Julia, paid for her stay at the King Edward Hotel and bought her some food. These purchases might reasonably be seen as debts which Julia wished to repay to Mr. Rocker and, in reliance upon Justice MacDonnell’s definition of a material benefit in Esho 2017 O.J. No. 5418, the Crown acknowledges that the evidence cannot support a finding that Mr. Rocker was materially benefiting from Julia’s acts of prostitution.
[44] I agree with the Crown’s very fair characterization of the evidence and accordingly, the charge of receiving a material benefit is dismissed.
Count #3 – Advertising Sexual Services for Consideration
[45] Julia and Jessica both testified that Mr. Rocker had nothing to do with the advertisements which were placed on Backpage in Toronto offering Julia’s sexual services. This charge is also dismissed.
Count #4 - Sexual Assault
[46] The police asked Julia in her videotaped statement if she had had sexual contact with Rocco. Julia said no but then added that he said that he wanted to fuck her and she had told him no. She and Mr. Rocker had been dancing at a club and Mr. Rocker became “too attached” and said that he wanted to fuck her. Julia immediately said no. As she observed to the officers, Mr. Rocker was almost as old as her father.
[47] Shortly after the conversation at the club, Julia and Mr. Rocker were at the hotel watching a movie. Julia fell asleep and awoke to find Mr. Rocker kissing her neck, going down to her stomach and then wanting to go to her private area. Julia angrily told him no and left the couch. Mr. Rocker then got into bed with Mystical and proceeded to have sex with her.
[48] Mr. Rocker apologized to Julia the next morning.
[49] The defence cross-examined Julia on some small inconsistencies between her video statement and her evidence at trial. Mr. Gamulin submitted that those inconsistencies should give rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether the sexual assault occurred at all. This was one of several occasions during the trial when Julia’s viva voce testimony was at odds with the statement that she adopted as true and which was admitted into evidence under section 715.1. I heard submissions from both parties with respect to the weight that should be placed on the video portion of Julia’s evidence in comparison to her viva voce testimony.
[50] The Crown submits that the statement is the most accurate source of evidence and where a conflict arises between Julia’s statement and her testimony in court, the statement evidence should be preferred. The defence argues that Julia was high on cocaine at the time that she gave the statement and was inclined to exaggerate her allegations against Mr. Rocker in order to avoid responsibility for her own actions. Mr. Gamulin submits that the video evidence should be all but disregarded and the case should be decided solely on Julia’s current recollections.
[51] I do not accept that Julia was under the influence of cocaine at the time that she gave her statement. P.C. Lee testified that he entered the room at the Holiday Inn at 1:52 p.m. and found Julia asleep in bed along with two other girls. The statement began at 6:28 p.m. on the same day. There was no opportunity for Julia to have consumed cocaine for at least 4 ½ hours prior to giving the statement.
[52] Julia was responsive to questions throughout the interview. She provided detailed answers and corrected the investigators on occasions when they mistook her evidence. She was undoubtedly exhausted and very likely feeling the effects of withdrawal but I see no evidence that she was intoxicated. Julia herself pointed out at trial that when she is high, she is energetic, speaks quickly and sits up straight. She contrasted that to her appearance in the video statement where she appeared to be lethargic and grumpy.
[53] In my view, there is no need to determinatively decide which portion of Julia's evidence is more reliable. The video statement conveys Julia’s immediate, emotionally charged memories regarding certain events and it is highly probative with respect to those matters.
[54] The video statement is less reliable on matters of perception and the interpretation of events. At one point in the statement, Julia described the men who approached her in the club as “Rocco’s boys”. When cross-examined on this portion of the statement, she acknowledged that she had no basis to believe that the men were associated in any way with Mr. Rocker and she was at a loss to explain why she had said it. This illustrates the hazards of placing significant weight on Julia’s perceptions of events at a time when she was high on cocaine and MDMA.
[55] My assessment of Julia's credibility ultimately relies on both sources of evidence depending on what is factually in issue.
[56] I find that Julia’s videotaped statement concerning the sexual assault is the most reliable account of what actually happened. It is apparent from watching the video that Julia had no idea that she was reporting a sexual assault when she described Mr. Rocker’s actions to police. She did not embellish her account in any regard. She related the sexual assault to Mr. Rocker’s comments at the club in a very convincing way and her revulsion at the prospect of having sex with Mr. Rocker was unmistakably authentic. The fact that she also recalled Mr. Rocker’s apology the next morning demonstrates that she was not manufacturing a false allegation to further incriminate Mr. Rocker.
[57] Counsel for Mr. Rocker did not seriously challenge Julia’s account of the sexual assault and I viewed that as a sound tactical decision. Mr. Rocker’s defence to the human trafficking charge is that he was partying with the four young girls and however reprehensible that may be from a moral standpoint, it was not criminal behaviour. Taking the girls to clubs, providing them with cocaine and then trying to have sex with them is consistent with Mr. Rocker’s overall defence at trial.
[58] In the end, I am absolutely satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rocker touched Julia for a sexual purpose while she was asleep and unable to consent. Although it is unnecessary to make out the charge, I also find that Mr. Rocker was aware that if Julia had been conscious, she would not have consented to his sexual touching. I therefore find Mr. Rocker guilty of the charge of sexual assault.
Count #5 – Assault
[59] Julia testified that Mr. Rocker violently grabbed her arm and pulled her away from a group of men who were attempted to enlist her to work for them. The force of the assault left a significant bruise on Julia’s arm which was photographed by police after she gave her statement on February 23rd, 2016.
[60] The defence to this assault, to the extent that there is any, is that Mr. Rocker was required to use force to remove Julia from a potentially dangerous situation. If there was excessive force, it was inadvertent and only arose from the urgency of the circumstances.
[61] There is nothing in Julia’s account of the event which would suggest that Mr. Rocker was required to use bruising force to remove her from the scene. If the situation was that dire, Mr. Rocker would presumably have requested the assistance of security staff at the club. Mr. Rocker implicitly acknowledged his wrongdoing when he apologized to Julia and told her that he would not have done what he did if she had simply come with him.
[62] Mr. Rocker applied significant force to Julia’s arm to compel her to do what he wanted her to do. She did not consent to that force and no consent could have been assumed in the circumstances. The force that he applied significantly exceeded what would have been required to guide Julia away from a potentially hazardous encounter. He is guilty of assault.
Count #6 – Trafficking in Cocaine
[63] Jessica testified that she bought roughly 6.5 grams of cocaine from Mr. Rocker for $375 to $400 at some point during the time that she was staying at the King Edward Hotel. Jessica is a witness of unsavoury character and there are a number of reasons to view her evidence with caution. The list includes the following:
a. Jessica was arrested on February 23rd, 2016 and charged with human trafficking offences concerning events which had occurred in Niagara Falls. She provided a statement to police on the day of her arrest which included a number of deliberate lies. She claimed in this initial statement that she had found the cocaine on a street in Hamilton and denied that she even knew Mr. Rocker.
b. Jessica was held for a bail hearing. On the day that she was scheduled to appear for her bail hearing, she provided a second statement to police which included the assertion that Mr. Rocker had sold her the cocaine which had been found in her bra at the time of her arrest. She was granted bail on consent that day and all of her charges were eventually withdrawn by the Crown.
c. Jessica is currently facing charges in Hamilton which include possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and obstruct police.
[64] Jessica has also given inconsistent testimony concerning the cocaine that she received from Mr. Rocker. In her second statement to police, she said that Mr. Rocker gave the cocaine to her to sell on his behalf. She also said that she had purchased the cocaine for $300 rather than $375 to $400. When she was confronted with her statement to police, Jessica was at a loss to explain why she had told police that she was intending to sell the cocaine for Mr. Rocker. She was very clear in her trial evidence that she intended to sell the cocaine for her own financial benefit.
[65] Jessica did not present as a credible witness but it was primarily her efforts to minimize Mr. Rocker’s criminal responsibility which diminished her credibility. Those efforts included:
a. Testifying that she did not discuss her age with Mr. Rocker which was contrary to a number of prior statements in which she clearly indicated that she had told him that she was 16 years old;
b. Claiming to be uncertain whether it was Mr. Rocker who was paying for the hotel rooms when it was self-evident that he was;
c. Testifying that none of the girls were doing sex work while they were staying at the King Edward Hotel, a suggestion which was completely at odds with text messages which were sent from her cell phone to Mr. Rocker’s;
d. Professing to have no recollection of ever talking to Mr. Rocker about the girls providing sexual services.
[66] It is idle to speculate why Jessica would testify in a manner which was seemingly calculated to assist Mr. Rocker. The fact that she would undertake such an effort certainly detracts from her overall credibility but it lends credence to the few areas where she reluctantly implicates him. The most prominent such area was the trafficking of cocaine.
[67] There are indications throughout the evidence that Jessica and Mr. Rocker had a close working relationship. Jessica’s telephone records show that they spoke and messaged frequently. Jessica sent a text message to Mr. Rocker on February 21st between 11:00 to 12:00 p.m. asking “Did the girls hit any calls”. Two messages were sent from Julia’s phone to Mr. Rocker’s phone on February 23rd which read “700$ guy is coming at 5:30” and “make sure the girls are up”. Julia testified that she did not send this text but that Jessica frequently used her phone. The message is similar in tone to the message sent to Mr. Rocker on Jessica’s own phone and it is entirely in keeping with Jessica’s role both in Niagara Falls and Toronto as the manager of the three girls. The fact that Jessica and Mr. Rocker worked in close collaboration lends support to Jessica’s evidence that Mr. Rocker sold her the cocaine.
[68] Text messages on Jessica’s phone demonstrate that she arrived at the King Edward Hotel on February 19th at about 11:00 p.m. On the following day, she sent a message to her friend Bhelsea saying “Yeo I’m moving white so if you know anyone who needs that let me know.” This message is in accord with the statement that Jessica made to police on March 1st, 2016 when she said that she received the cocaine from Mr. Rocker on either the Friday night when they arrived or the following Saturday.
[69] Julia also testified that Mr. Rocker was in possession of cocaine and provided it to her.
[70] There is nothing surprising about the fact that Jessica attempted to provide a false statement to police when she was arrested. Jessica was a highly manipulative and self-interested actor. She created and posted advertisements for Julia, Dejeuner and Mystical in Niagara Falls and collected all of the profits from Julia’s work. It was Jessica who messaged with Mr. Rocker to determine where they should go when they arrived in Toronto and Jessica who followed up with Mr. Rocker to confirm that the girls were hitting calls. Jessica managed to serve all of her own interests by manipulating others.
[71] Providing a false statement to police is exactly what one would expect of such a street smart 16 year girl. With the benefit of legal advice, she quickly provided a sworn statement to police. There was little suggestion during Jessica’s cross-examination that this statement was at odds with her trial evidence or any other evidence which came before the court. When her own interests were best served by telling the truth, Jessica was prepared to do so.
[72] The fact that Jessica may have difficulty remembering the details of events which occurred two years ago is not surprising or troubling. To illustrate the extent of her difficulties, she was unable to recall even the names of Dejeuner or Mystical at trial. She was 16 years old at the time of these events and never expected or wanted to be a witness. Jessica was unwavering in her evidence that it was Mr. Rocker who sold her the cocaine that was found in her bra and that evidence is entirely consistent with all of the other facts in this case.
[73] Based on all of the evidence at trial, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rocker sold cocaine to Jessica. The defence having conceded all other elements of the offence, I find Mr. Rocker guilty of the offence of trafficking in cocaine.
Count #7 – Trafficking in a Substance Held Out to be Cocaine Contrary to the CDSA
[74] Julia told police in her videotaped statement that Mr. Rocker provided her with cocaine on the very first night that she arrived in Toronto and on numerous occasions over the ensuing four days. She was familiar with cocaine from having used it in Niagara Falls and she believed that the substance that she was given by Mr. Rocker resembled and had the same physiological effects as cocaine.
[75] Jessica purchased cocaine from Mr. Rocker and the substance that she received from him was proven to be cocaine. Jessica saw Julia snorting what appeared to be a line of cocaine off a table at the Holiday Inn.
[76] While it may be true that the evidence does not include a specific statement by Mr. Rocker to Julia to the effect “here is some cocaine for you”, the totality of the evidence does not leave any reasonable doubt that Mr. Rocker did on several occasions provide a substance to Julia which he held out to be cocaine. Counsel for Mr. Rocker never challenged Julia with respect to this aspect of her evidence. The fact that Mr. Rocker provided cocaine to Julia is entirely in keeping with Mr. Rocker’s fundamental position that he was only partying with the girls and not seeking to exploit them for personal gain.
[77] Accordingly, I find him guilty of count 7.
Peter Bawden J.
Released: June 14, 2018
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
- and -
COURTNEY ROCKER
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BAWDEN J.
Released: June 14, 2018
[^1]: It is alleged that Mr. Rocker committed a sexual assault on Julia while they were staying at the King Edward Hotel. Given the particular nature of that allegation, Crown counsel did not rely on it as evidence of exercising control or direction under section 279.011(1).